Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v.

Secretary of DAR
G.R. No. 93100
June 19, 1997
Justice J. Romero

SUBJECT MATTER:
III. Judicial Review

LEGAL BASIS
RA 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
- Section 3(b) – which includes the raising of fish in the definition of “Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural
Activity”
- Section 11 – which defines “commercial farms” as private agricultural lands devoted to fishponds and prawn ponds
- Section 13 – which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan
- Section 16(d)and 17 which vest on DAR authority to summarily determine the just compensation to be paid for lands covered
by CARL
- Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing plan in Section 13
RA 7881 – An Act Amending Certain Provisions of RA 6657 - Which expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from
the coverage of CARL
1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Art III. Sec 1. – No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petition to review the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as it concerns to aquaculture lands.

Petitioner(s): - Atlas Fertilizer Corporation,

Parties - Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc.
- Archie’s Fishpond, Inc.
- Arsenio Al. Acuna

Respondent(s): - Secretary of DAR

SUMMARY:
Petitioners filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law. Due to certain provisions under this new reform law, Petitioners would be required to distribute to its workers 3% of total gross
sales at the end of the year and an additional 10% if Petitioners reach profit. However, before the case was resolved, RA 7881 was
passed, which resolved the assailed provisions of RA 6657. Because of the passing of RA 7881, the court found the petition moot and
academic.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Petitioners question the constitutionality of RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. They
question sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17, and 32.
● Petitioners argue that aquaculture lands are not recognized as agrarian lands, as in the vein of Luz Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform.
○ In aquaculture, fishponds and prawn farms, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in
productivity and, hence, as held in “Luz Farms”, they too should be excluded from R.A. 6657 just as lands devoted
to livestock, swine, and poultry have been excluded for the same reason.

C2023(MARTIN) – Consti 1, Gatmaytan

 ● Petitioners also argue that considering aquaculture operations to be equal to agrarian operations was in violation of the
equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution.
● On Feb 20, 1995, RA 7881 was approved by Congress. It explicitly states that private lands actually, directly and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. W/N provisions of RA 6657 are constitutional or not – Moot and Academic
RATIO:
1. Questioning the provisions of RA 6657 are now moot and academic. The passing of RA 7881, as it amends the assailed
provisions of RA 6657, makes unnecessary the question of constitutionality.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

C2023(MARTIN) – Consti 1, Gatmaytan